Perhaps we should look at the definitions of sentimentality and reword them in a less judgmental way; go to the very start of sentimental emotion as it occurs in a human being. Because if it does occur spontaneously - emerging from the subconscious into the conscious mind - then it is a valid key to the workings of the human mind and thus a valid tool in it's (the human mind's) expression.
Post-modernist philosophy and art presents kitsch, albeit ironically, as an unexplored theme or subject of art. They are very aware of its conventionally low-brow status, and make very sure everyone knows they are aware of this, hence it's ironic presentation in their work. Perhaps we could go one step further and look at kitsch, sentimentality, etc. without irony. I don't like sentimentality or kitsch, but I am ever-increasingly aware that I have these sentiments myself and that they will insist on coming out. My art is a constant battle against a "nasty feeling" coming though. My son is a lovely excuse for buying kitsch ("well, it's for the children, really ... ). These feeling are there, like laziness, boredom (I am thoroughly BORED with this painting, for example), selfishness. Should they be curbed, stamped out, or looked at with interest and expressed with honesty?
I think, speaking honestly, that I abhore anyone's sentimentality except my own. But I am curious - are there really 10,000 people who can realistically depict anything - especially a person? ESPECIALLY a person? That seems arbitrarily dismissive. I doubt its veracity.
Perhaps 10000 people can realistically depict the Tree in the generic, but nobody ever said "That's not my tree."
If the portrait depends on the likeness, there's more than the photographic likeness at stake. Isn't there?
But I am curious - are there really 10,000 people who can realistically depict anything - especially a person? ESPECIALLY a person? That seems arbitrarily dismissive. I doubt its veracity.
Hybrid Mode
